Hate to say this, but I was a bit disappointed in both Nic's and Al's contributions to the debate last night. I thought the Australian scientist's main points had some validity but could have been attacked on logical grounds; rather than the emotive ones used.
The first point that small populations can be overwhelmed by random events is true if a population is concentrated in one place. That's why virtually every recovery plan involves translocations either to remove the species concerned to safe havens and/or to build up insurance populations. This has worked for several species that come to mind eg the saddleback.
The other point is that the focus is on the "cute and cuddly" species while the vast majority of threatened species are left to their own devices is a fair one. But let's face it, DOC doesn't have the resources to do it all themselves. Find a threatened species in your area and see what you can do - you might be surprised!
One last point, mathematical models may work if we have statistically reliable information - in most cases we don't.